09-17-2015, 03:56 PM
(09-17-2015, 03:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I work in the criminal justice system. I know very well how all of that works. But "convenience" is not reason to kill innocent people.
The chase would still be justified in the case of any person who was a threat of violence.
Again, would you be able to tell the parents or children of an innocent person killed in a high speed chase that the chase was justified in order to get your car back?
A study by California Highway Patrol found that injury and loss of life are more likely not pursuing than from pursuits. I would tell them that because the alternative is telling someone else's family, who was killed by someone who wasn't stopped when they could have been, that police didn't do there job and your loved one is dead because of it. Before you say "I said violent offenders could be pursued" that doesn't include intoxicated drivers who kill 10k people annually. That 10k isn't including those who don't die or kill someone because they currently are chased and apprehended.
From CHP Study ...
“undoubtedly, innocent people may be injured or killed because an officer chooses to pursue
a suspect, but this risk is necessary to avoid the even greater loss that would occur if law
enforcement agencies were not allowed to aggressively pursue violators”
It has since been backed up by other studies, but the point is there are factors that can make pursuits safer. Things like road conditions, density of traffic and bystanders, officers experience and training level, and of course speeds should all be considered when determining when to pursue.
I think it is a necessary evil to maintain law and order, you don't, and neither of us will move off that position.
